|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
happy_camper
Joined: 18 Mar 2005
Posts: 256
Location: 3rd coast
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:07 pm Post subject: Reforming an unhealthy industry
|
|
|
Local Biz writer Loren Steffy weighs in on some of the problems vexing the health insurance industry:
| Quote: |
Insurance is supposed to protect us from catastrophe, like an umbrella shields us from the rain.
Any discussion of health care reform, therefore, has to start with insurance. It’s the piece of the system that is fundamentally broken, that leaves policyholders and employers paying more and getting less. |
And how is the insurance industry broken?
| Quote: |
A study published recently in the American Journal of Medicine found that almost two-thirds of personal bankruptcies filed in 2007 were related to medical expenses. Even more surprising: three-fourths of those filing had medical insurance at the onset of their bankruptcy-causing illness. Many later lost it.
. . .
The latest study was a follow-up to one done in 2001, and the latest results showed the bankruptcies attributable to medical expenses rose almost 50 percent in the ensuing six years. The latest findings preceded the recession, so the increase can’t be blamed on the economic downturn. |
Insurance protects you in case of a major illness, eh? According to the study, the average insured family faced out of pocket expenses totalling $17,800 for a catastrophic illness.
As for the insurance lobby, conservative politicians and god knows who else, their protest of government intervention runs contrary to the free market in force, where a patient has a right to choose, Steffy retorts:
| Quote: |
We like to think of our current health care system as free-market based, but there’s little competition among insurers.
Most of us get our health insurance through our employers, meaning we have little choice in what company we use or how much it costs. If we are unhappy with their performance, we have few viable alternatives.
We can go without insurance, seek private insurance at far greater cost or, for those of use who are married, move to a spouse’s employer plan, which also comes with limited choice. |
Which has been my main complaint all along: the only way for me to gain "affordable" health insurance is through my employer. However, as we all know, employers are desperate to cut costs and one way is by choosing policies that offer diminished coverage, if they offer any insurance plan at all. More and more employers (especially in retail) are going with part-time staff and rarely is there any insurance plan offered to such an employee.
Where exactly is my "choice" in this so-called free market? Where are the prices posted? What's the going fee for bypass surgery? Does the price for setting a broken nose and fractured jaw go up on a Friday when the moon is full and it's payday to boot?
I don't know the specifics of Obama's plan, but I'm watching closely, and if he requires that all states must require that their residents purchase health insurance, then prices any government plans outside of a worker's budget, and doctors set pirate's rates for their services, plenty of people will be peeved.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Nofsdad
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 8380
Location: Central CA
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:34 am Post subject:
|
|
|
If I hear the term "free market forces" one more fricking time, I swear to whatever I can find to swear to my damned head is going to explode.
We haven't had an actual free market in over thirty years. What the Reagan worshippers call a free market is a market in which the large corporations and the rich people who run them are free to do any damned thing they want to TO any damned one they want to, unfettered by any form of regulation or what they call "government interference".
Anyone who pretends that the deregulation that started during the Reagan administration and reached full fruition during the last ten years had nothing to do with the massive profit taking that culminated in the current financial collapse is either ignorant or part of the problem.
Likewise, anyone who can look at data like the following...
| Quote: |
| A study published recently in the American Journal of Medicine found that almost two-thirds of personal bankruptcies filed in 2007 were related to medical expenses. Even more surprising: three-fourths of those filing had medical insurance at the onset of their bankruptcy-causing illness. |
and still deny that there is something horribly wrong with a system that actually bases life or death decisions for its citizens on how much money an individual citizen can mange to cough up.
Nobody in a country that claims to be "civilized" should be allowed to die because they don't have enough money to live. And yet, that is exactly what is being talked about here. Your very right to LIFE... forget about liberty and the pursuit of happiness... in supposedly the most enlightened country in the world... is based on your ability to pay for it.
At the present time, in spite of all the screeching and screaming and political posturing being done by those who advocate the uncontrolled and abusive form of Capitalism that "Reagaqnomics" gave birth to, there is no indication that any recognized "side" or faction really gives a rats ass about the people directly affected by the health care situation.
The primary consideration for anyone with a bully pulpit or access to the public airwaves is how to maintain current profit levels for the mega corporations who have been given control of whether you and I live or die. Hell, it's not only the primary consideration, it appears to be the ONLY consideration.
No other developed country in the world has managed to make an "industry" of providing basic health care benefits to its citizens just as no other developed country has made an "industry" of educating its citizens or making war or any of the other responsibilities that would normally be expected to fall to a central government.
What is most ironic... at least from the viewpoint of people like you and I... is that the people screeching the loudest against the idea of universal health care for ALL citizens... along with their lackeys in the US government who are supposedly looking out for all of us... all receive their own... basically unlimited... health care benefits either free gratis or at greatly reduced cost through the companies they "work" for or, in the case of our passionately devoted public servants, paid for... either entirely or in large part... by the same people to whom they deny even basic benefits, the working class taxpayers.
Unfettered capitalism... NOT capitalism itself... but the kind of capitalism we've had rammed down our throats by the tiny minority of the population that has managed to seize of the majority of the wealth... has never been about the people as a whole. It is... and is always GOING to be... about that tiny little group at the top who have managed to steal an entire country right out from under its citizens.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
mdovell
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 461
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:37 am Post subject:
|
|
|
"No other developed country in the world has managed to make an "industry" of providing basic health care benefits to its citizens just as no other developed country has made an "industry" of educating its citizens or making war or any of the other responsibilities that would normally be expected to fall to a central government."
Well yes and no. There are strong differences between healthcare in western countries. Canada for example everyone is covered. You cannot go to any private practice because it is illegal. In the UK you can but you'd probably create a bunch of odd questions if you told people you went to a private doctor.
Here's a link compairing plans of other countries
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries
It sounds like the UK is improving the timing and opening up a bit of competition. If hospitals compete for funds you have to wonder what they do to win it
Japan in most respects sounds a bit like massachusetts plan which is basically what obama is somewhat planning (you make having health care the law, you mandate employers with x number of employees are offered a plan, if someone cannot afford a plan there's subsidized ones. if you want more coverage you can pay more so yes you do have a choice and yes there is coverage)
Germany looks somewhat private but those are non profits competing
Taiwan looks pretty familar
The Swiss sound good but 95% of people already had coverage to start with
The interviews are actually quite detailed.
I don't think we'd ever go as far as canada or the UK. What is in massachusetts is probably going to eventually be in each state. Unless we modify the constitution then it's going to be by the state. Everyone has health care where I am. It doesn't imply as if everyone is healthy however it does provided a bit more of a security. For example I think COBRA is nullified here.
If you ever got fired or laid off you can still get care. Employers might get ticked off since they can't threaten to terminate people and have them lose their insurance. Although on the same note if you work just for insurance you might not have to under this plan.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
dictators_rule
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Posts: 6307
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:07 am Post subject: psuedo socialist
|
|
|
nofs - haven't had a free market system in 30 years
How right you are,especially when it comes to health care. The alleged free market in health care is that the medical industry has learned to play the INSURANCE game as well as the INSURANCE industry plays the game with payments and coverage.
The INSURANCE or MEDICAL INSURANCE industry has become the defacto government when it comes to health care. I hate to say it SOMETIMES even catching abuses in billing.
But this is what happens when you worry about WHO is going to pay rather than what and how much is going to be paid.
The word ' catastrophe ' was raised in the original post. Again that nails it down quite well but the problem now is that insurance has gone beyond catastrohpic events . So now along with many of the patients; most of which are covered for the sniffles the medical industry has sniffled that there isn't enough preventive care which is mostly rountine regular office visits for which they CAN BILL-your INSURANCE company for.
But should the docs or patients expect the sniffles or a prescription writing session to be covered by insurance.
eh -the whole thing has become a booby trapped game at this point
Last edited by dictators_rule on Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:47 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
Nofsdad
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 8380
Location: Central CA
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:11 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
"No other developed country in the world has managed to make an "industry" of providing basic health care benefits to its citizens just as no other developed country has made an "industry" of educating its citizens or making war or any of the other responsibilities that would normally be expected to fall to a central government."
Well yes and no. There are strong differences between healthcare in western countries. Canada for example everyone is covered. You cannot go to any private practice because it is illegal. In the UK you can but you'd probably create a bunch of odd questions if you told people you went to a private doctor. |
I'm sorry but I don't see what relation your response to my statement bears to the statement itself which is that the United States has the only health care system in the world in which the treatment of the patient has been completely subordinated to the amount of profit the insurance company and, to a lesser degree, the health care provider can make based upon the level of treatment provided.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
mdovell
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 461
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:44 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Well as some of the countries illustrated have plans with organizations that are not run by the government. There's a strong difference between the government itself running a plan like NHS in the UK clearly is and having a choice of providers such as Germany. Yes they are private but they are non profit. A private insurance organization does not exactly imply it is for profit.
There's always going to be a industry of medical care if it's government run or not. If we went as far as to do what canada does in terms of banning a private practice I'm sure some might simply go underground.
There are two issues with health care and those are simply having health care (public, private etc) and the costs of it. Once a coverage is more mandated then the price can go down. Or as in germany and the swiss there can be some competition within this this bring prices down or care up.
In terms of the other things mensioned as making a industry out of war there are many companies around western europe that have. The paris air show alone is internationally known as where other countries view future weapons of warfare.
The USA easily has spent far more on the military than Europe. I'm not debating that at all. However post cold war Europe has significantly started to develop their own weapony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
And education well I've met fair amounts of students from around the world that come to the USA. In terms of Europe many come over because they probably cannot afford Oxford or the Sorbone. I've met much more from Eastern europe than western. Until the EU fully expands I think this will continue. Heck the class I'm taking now there's one from brazil, one from turkey, a few from nigeria, one from albania, one from columbia and the professor is originally from Iran (came over well past 30 years ago). If many of these people didn't like the "industry" of the educational system here then they would have stayed home. The list goes on and on of where I've met students from.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|